Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rapunzel (Disney)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC).

Rapunzel (Disney)

 * Nominator(s): Changedforbetter (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured article status because, after spending several months proofreading, referencing and completing it, I now believe that it is of substantial quality. I strongly believe that it is the most sophisticated Disney-related fictional character article on Wikipedia. Changedforbetter (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This is a nice article but the infobox—with its "Species: Human | Gender: Female | Title: Princess etc"—is, frankly, extremely silly. Those sections are better off for an animal's or an officeholder's infobox, not a cartoon character's. It also provides an overly WP:INUNIVERSE perspective. I feel removing the infobox would improve the article, but even if you disagree you should at least trim it significantly.—indopug (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the species, gender and title from the infobox. However, I must disagree with your idea to remove the infobox completely because I have yet to come across a well-written (FA, GA or B-class) article that does not use one.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, but I think none of the in-universe stuff (i.e. under the "Information" header) should be here. It overemphasises fictional aspects, which is discouraged by WP:WAF-INFO.—indopug (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you think that there are no FAs without infoboxes, you can think again (and perhaps ought to read the TFA more often, plug plug!) From August TFAs alone, we have Geography and ecology of the Everglades, Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860, British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War, Social history of viruses, Premiership of John Edward Brownlee, and Parity of zero. BencherliteTalk 23:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you were obviously offended by my previous comment which, by the way, was not my intention. What I meant to say was that I have yet to come across a well-written FICTIONAL CHARACTER article that does not use a FICTIONAL CHARACTER infobox.  Please note that there is a difference between "there are no", which I did not say, and "I have yet to come across", which I did say.--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not offended in the least, so don't worry about that. If you had limited your observations to fictional characters in the first place, I wouldn't have felt the need to comment.  Anyway, on with the FAC and good luck.  I'll hat this to avoid disturbing the FAC further. BencherliteTalk 02:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - infobox:
 * Others may disagree, but the "title" parameter, or maybe better the "occupation" parameter, is useful here to summarize the character's general role.
 * A completely ignorant question, but is Rapunzel really depicted as "German" in the Disney franchise? Or is she merely a fantasy princess in a fairy-tale country? "Nationality" as infobox parameter looks strange here, it would be far more useful to note, that her "Origin" is Germany and the character is based on the Brothers Grimms' fairy tales. If i understand the infobox docu correctly, lbl1-3 may be used for such information (?). GermanJoe (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the character is not depicted as "German", the "Fictional German people" category should also be removed or changed. GermanJoe (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with you, I will wait until the actual review process begins to further discuss the "title"/"occupation" infobox issue. And no, Rapunzel is NOT German; she is from a fictional kingdom from Corona.  I have removed it from the infobox several times.  However, an anonymous user (as in one who does not use an account) insists on re-adding it to the infobox despite the fact that I have explained to him/her why the information is incorrect several times.  I will remove the information once again.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "German" is in there again. Have you tried directly talking to the IPer, talk page-style? If you have, and they refuse to discuss the issue, it may be worth contacting an admin. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments (leaning to reluctant oppose) I saw this on television recently and found the article was at FAC, so I will make some review comments. By the way, concerning the "I will wait until the actual review process begins" comment above, I would say the FAC review began with Indopug's first comment above.
 * I am an admin, if you want I can semi-protect the article so IPs cannot edit it. Please ask here or on my talk page if desired.
 * I believe that semi-protecting the article is unfortunately the best way to approach the situation. Thank you.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The claim that there are no FAs on fictional characters without an infobox is pretty easily disproved. I looked at the first 12 articles listed at Category:FA-Class fictional character articles. About 41% (5/12) of these do not have an infobox: Brunette Coleman, Characters of Carnivàle, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII (which has a navbox in the upper right corner), Flood (Halo), and Hardy Boys.
 * I have a lot of problems with the current infobox. It does not provide context to the reader - if all someone saw was the infbox (as can happen on some smart phones), it would not tell them this article is about a Disney character (as opposed to the fairy tale or even the version in Shrek films), and it makes it appear that the general character of Rapunzel first appeared in the world in 2010, sprung full-formed from the mind of Glen Keane. For an example of an FA infobox that does a much better job of making clear this is a character in a specific fictional universe, see Jabba the Hutt.
 * The current infobox also has problems from an in-universe perspective (see WP:IN-U). A reader who has not seen the film will not learn much from "Relatives: The King (father); The Queen (mother); Mother Gothel (adoptive mother)". Since there are no articles on her royal parents, what does it add to include the king and queen (and I think most readers will be sufficiently familiar with biology to know the king is her father and the queen is her mother). Since "Mother Gothel" kidnaps Rapunzel and holds her captive, I think calling her an "adoptive mother" is very problematic (since adoption is a legal process and kidnapping is not). I am not against an infobox here in general, but the current box detracts from the article it should add to (if included).
 * I am not going to comment on everything else in detail, but I do have some other pretty major concerns. FAs have to follow the WP:MOS and the relevant policies and guidelines. However, the lead here does not follow WP:LEAD; the lead is supposed to be a summary of the content of the article. My rule of thumb is to include each section / subsection in the lead in some way (even if it is just a sentence or phrase). The current lead does not mention the following sections (as far as I can see): Hair and technology, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Accolades and recognition (at least no awards).
 * The most difficult of the FA criteria for most articles to achieve is 1a 1.It is ... well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
 * Just in the lead, the first two sentences could be combined, tightening the prose: Rapunzel is a fictional character who appears in Walt Disney Pictures' 50th animated feature film Tangled (2010) . The character subsequently appears in the film's [, and in its] animated short sequel Tangled Ever After (2012). The word "appearances" could be omitted from the next sentence to tighten it.
 * Problem sentence Created and animated by Glen Keane, Rapunzel is based on the title character of the German fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm. First off, no one person does all the animation on a modern feature-length animated film. Second, since much of the character's story is taken from the fairy tale (long hair, held in a tower, falls in love with a man who climbs her hair into the tower, even being naïve), I am not sure the article can honestly say Keane "created" the character. Finally, the Brothers Grimm collected the fairy tales and edited them, but were not strictly speaking the authors of them (though they did make editorial changes and chose which version(s) to print). So perhaps this sentence would be better as something like Animator Glen Keane based the film's version of Rapunzel on the title character of the German fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm. Not perfect, but you get the idea.
 * Another problem sentence In the Disney film adaptation, Rapunzel, a princess born with long, magical golden hair, is abducted at infancy and raised by a vain woman named Mother Gothel, who exploits her hair's healing abilities in order to remain youthful. First off is abducted at infancy is not grammatically correct (infancy is not a single point or place). This whole sentence could be tightened too. Perhaps something like In the Disney film, the vain Mother Gothel abducts the infant princess Rapunzel and raises her, using the healing abilities of Rapunzel's long, magical golden hair to remain youthful.
 * Although based on the heroine of the Grimm fairy tale, Rapunzel was developed into a less "passive" character for the Disney film adaptation. The lead has already said she is based on a Grimm fairy tale, why does this need to be repeated? Also, why does passive need to be in quotes? If it is a direct quote, then I think by WP:MOSQUOTE this needs a reference.
 * Be consistent in how information is presented. The lead says Originally planned to have been voiced by actresses Kristin Chenoweth and Reese Witherspoon prior to Moore's involvement, Rapunzel's personality was inspired by those of actresses Natalie Portman and Amy Poehler. The article makes it clear that all three women were actually cast as the voice of the character (though the caption of the three actresses' photos confusingly says they were the top three actresses considered for the role of Rapunzel). Cast (in a role) is not the same as planned (for a role) which is not the same as considered (for a role). Plus the sentence is clunky Originally planned to have been voiced by actresses... could just be something like "Actresses Kristin Chenoweth and Reese Witherspoon were briefly cast in the role before Moore... and I think this could be tightened too Rapunzel's personality was inspired by those of actresses...''
 * Another problem sentence: Her physical appearance and personality have caused much comparison to be drawn between her and preceding Disney Princess Ariel from The Little Mermaid (1989), by whom she was also inspired. First off, avoid the passive voice where possible, so perhaps Critics have compared her physical appearance and personality to the Disney Princess Ariel from The Little Mermaid (1989), whom the filmmakers cite as an inspiration.
 * Not from the lead, but just too bad to not mention here under failing to meet 1a As directors, Greno and Howard aimed to ensure that Rapunzel resembled a less "passive" heroine than how she is depicted in the original fairy tale.
 * Another FA criterion is that the article be complete - could a comparison between the Grimm fairy tale version of the character and this one be made? The fair tale character becomes pregnant by her suitor, her hair is not magical, but she does have magical healing tears.
 * While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into this article, I am leaning to a reluctant oppose as it does not meet the FA criteria and it seems as if too much work may be required to get it to FA standards while at FAC. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I semi-protected the article. Sorry about the FAC. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have to admit that you are right; there is far too much work to be done in order for Rapunzel to reach FA status. Please feel free to close/end the nomination process.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.